Guantanamo House of Cards ...

Agreed. So what are we arguing about? Oh yeah, where the line between them falls: you tend to err on the side of conservative values (law and order, etc) and I tend to err on the side of liberal values (extending rights, freedoms, liberties and justice for all, no matter who is involved, etc).Thanks.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, I am a Conservative after all. LOLBut what we are discussing, I thought, was how the people at Gitmo should be treated under a legal system.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think the obvious choice would be to treat all prisoners as prisoners of war.If some of them are suspected of being unlawful combatants, then charge them for it, and if found guilty then change their status.To keep a 15 year locked up for so long with no counsel, and no due process is just immoral. (I know he is not 15 any more)

Correct, and in order to do that we need to define categories for the prisoners where treatment should be different. What we have are(1) lawful combatant
(2) unlawful combatant
(3) lawful terrorist
(4) unlawful terroristPersonally in think we can eliminate lawful terrorist under the lawful combatant category - using whatever means to fight a dirty war. US bombing of civilian targets would fall in this category.We further have lawful combatant as being a member of a nation state that is engaged in the war. You and I disagree that any Iraqis national fighting against invading forces are lawful combatants, the issue being whether the national government had sanctioned to soldiers or whether they took up arms on their own to fight the invaders (the kind of position that the NRA would appear to take for fighting against any invasion of the US).Another stone to throw in the pond here is that Saddam -- IIRC -- called from prison for all Iraqis to fight the american invaders. This could be taken as sanctioning all Iraqis to be lawful combatants.That would leave only the foreign fighters in question, and by the same token, if Saddam did not call on all arabs to fight, this would leave them as unlawful combatants (and or terrorists).In Afghanistan we would have a slightly different situation, as there is still a remnant army and leaders in exile. This would mean that all soldiers fighting together with Taliban forces should be considered lawful combatants (under Taliban command) and only those operating outside of Taliban commmand units & foreigners (ie Al Queda) would be unlawful combatants (and or terrorists).Again, unlawful combatant and unlawful terrorist are both in violation of law for their actions and would be subject to civil laws in that regard, so they can be combined as well.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : last P

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You proposed the four categories: which I pretty much agree with. I also believe we are pretty close in agreement that everyone should fall under either the set of Military Laws or of the Civil Laws.The problem with US behavior related to the prisoners at Gitmo (and many other locations, some unknown), is that the Administration is claiming there is some third designation that is not covered either by Military or Civil Laws.The issue of who is a lawful terrorist unfortunately is almost always decided after the fact by the winner.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You listed four categories ... I think we might come close to agreeing on some objective standards for the first two.What would be some objective standards though for the last two?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Legal is difficult. I may have to mean that it was within some law while advocating change of a contradicting and more repressive law. Thus it would support the constitution but act against a repressive loss of rights, choice, freedom or liberty.I don't think it could be based on morality, as that is so hard to pin down for all cases, being relative, and runs into the problem of abortion clinics being blown up because the perps think it is moral (and in their relative morality it is). That would be too subjective.Could blowing up election booths when it is known (by the perps at least) that the election is being defrauded be legal? If done to minimize property damage and at a time that no people are injured? Imagine a program\group that destroys polling stations, machines and counting systems across the country to advocate a better system than the two party one person one (often negative) vote system. Hacking the electronic machines to vote for Grouch Marx would be one system that would bring attention to the problems there.I wrestle with eco-terrorism where bad structures are blown up to try to preserve some natural heritage areas. Putting nails in trees to make them dangerous to cut down and then letting the forestry companies know it was done could be a possible form of legal terrorism, especially if done on federal land without breaking any laws.What do you think?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Legal is a difficult issue. Unfortunately, it is the kind of situation which may only be legally decided after the fact.Earlier, the French Resistance during WWII was mentioned. There, many different situations could be imagined.Just from a geographic and jurisdictional perspective there could be ...

• a partisan operating in occupied France against German occupation forces.
• a partisan operating in occupied France against Legal French forces supporting the occupying forces.
• a partisan in occupied France destroying or damaging basic infrastructure used by both the general populus and occupying forces.
• a partisan in occupied France acting directly against other French citizens that are either supporting the occupying forces or not aggressively opposing those forces.
• all of the above but in the Vichy controlled parts of France.
• all of the above but operating outside the borders of either occupied France or Vichy France.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let's start with the most likely legal. Let's also assume that they were in the french army prior to the occupation, and thus were a legal combatant before the french surrender.Is that enough to be a legal terrorist?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

If they had been in the military would they be under the obligations of the terms of surrender?Would that even be relevant legally?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

let's assume they were discharged (medical), and started with the resistance prior to surrender. It would establish a legal combatant status as a prior condition.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

How? If they are discharged would they still have legal combatant status? If they still have legal status under prior contact, would they then also still be under the terms of surrender?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So what we have is that a legal terrorist (if this category really exists) cannot be a legal combatant after the surrender? Then lets take before the surrender: couldn't a lawful combatant assist in a lawful terrorist activity (blowing up a german tank)?After the surrender do they then have to be a non-combatant according to military conventions?We then have the citizens that were part of the previous terrorist activity, people that reject the surrender as legal and find some legal basis for fighting in patriotism? ideals? (liberté, égalité, fraternité): this is similar to the US war for independence eh? The Boston Tea Party was a lawful terrorist activity?{abe}We also have the case where civil government has collapsed and there is no effective "nation state" anymore, just lawless territory. In such a situation, terrorism would not be unlawful.{/abe}Edited by RAZD, : motto orderEdited by RAZD, : fixed missing patEdited by RAZD, : abe

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

One of the terms of almost every Military Surrender I checked was that those surrendering lay down arms and cease fighting.One exception I did find happened during the civil war where combatants were allowed to retain their small arms but agreed to return to their homes and not to "take up arms again for the purpose of war". I don't think it was legal.What grounds would make it so? It preceded even the enunciation of the rights as laid out in the Preamble to our Declaration of Independence. Even those simply assert Rights as opposed to Legalities. How so? Is it not, as you say, "Lawless?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

After the fact victory. History is written by the victor eh? It would not break any laws.It seems that this is really the only way I can see to have lawful terrorism. Kind of a small realm.We are near that in Iraq, and many may consider it so (particularly if they consider the current government a puppet of the invader). Can one opt out of laws?